Usually, you want to match up with someone at about your level, or a little higher. The trouble is that many people overestimate their own level. Maybe that’s especially true of men.
One summer many years ago at the tennis courts, a guy I didn’t know came over and asked me if I’d like to play. I hadn’t arranged a game with anyone, but I didn’t want to wind up playing some patzer.
“Are you any good?” I asked. He paused.
“Well, I’m not Jimmy Connors,” he said (I told this was many years ago), “but neither are you.”
In chess and other games, serious players have ratings. Give a roomful of possible partners, they can sort through the ratings and find a match with someone at roughly the same level. It’s called assortative mating, though that term usually refers to the other kind of mating, not chess. It’s the basis of the conflict in this poignant scene from “Louie.”
Vanessa is not a ten, neither is Louie. According to principles of assortative mating, the tens will wind up with other tens, the nines with nines, and so on down the attractiveness scale. One problem in the “Louie” scene is that Louie seems to have an inflated view of his own attractiveness. He’s aiming higher than Vanessa. That’s typical. So is the importance that Louie, the man, places on physical attractiveness. This excerpt begins with Louie telling Vanessa that she’s a really beautiful . . . . He can’t bring himself to say “girl”; he’s probably going to say “person.” But he’s obviously not saying what he thinks.
Or as Dan Ariely and colleagues concluded from their study of HotOrNot members:
[Men] were significantly more influenced by the consensus physical attractiveness of their potential dates than females were. [Men also] were less affected by how attractive they themselves were . . . In making date choices, males are less influenced by their own rated attractiveness than females are.
Another dating site, OK Cupid, found a similar pattern when they looked at data about who gets messages. They asked their customers to rate profile photos of the opposite sex on a scale of 0 to 5. They then tracked the number of messages for people at each level of attractiveness. The graph below shows what women thought and what they did – that is, how attractive they found men, and who they sent messages to.
Men who were rated 0 or 1 got fewer messages than their proportion in the population. That figures. But even men who were only moderately attractive got more than their share. Generally, the fewer men at a level of attractiveness, the fewer total messages women sent. The 4s, for example, constituted only 2% of the population, and they got only 4% of all the messages. The Vanessas on OK Cupid are not sending a lot of inquiries to guys who look like George Clooney.
But look at the men.
Men are more generous in their estimates of beauty than are women. But they also ignore the Vanessas of the world (or at least the world of OK Cupid) and flock after the more attractive women. Only 15% of the women were rated as a 4, but they received about 26% of the messages. Women rated 5 received messages triple their proportion in the population.
What about those with so-so looks? Women rated as 2s received only about 10% of the messages sent by men. But men at that same level received 25% of the messages women sent. The women seem more realistic.
Vanessa too has no illusions about her own attractiveness. She refers to herself as “a fat girl,” and when Louie, trying to be kind, says, “You’re not fat,” she says: “You know what the meanest thing is you can say to a fat girl? [pause] ‘You’re not fat.’” But it’s only when she challenges Louie’s view of his own attractiveness that their relationship starts to change.
Y’know if you were standing over there looking at us, you know what you’d see?
What?
That we totally match. We’re actually a great couple together.
She doesn’t explain what she means by “totally match.” It could be their interests or ideas or personalities, but the imaginary stranger looking at them from over there couldn’t know about any of that. What that generalized other could see is that they are at roughly the same place on the assortative mating attractiveness scale.
Cross-posted at Pacific Standard.
Jay Livingston is the chair of the Sociology Department at Montclair State University. You can follow him at Montclair SocioBlog or on Twitter.
Comments 60
LMC — June 10, 2014
Thanks for the interesting analysis.
It leaves me with a few questions and observations:
1) Would this overestimation hold in face-to-face interactions, or are people (and disproportionately men) emboldened by the relative anonymity and risk-free environment online? Having your message ignored stings a lot less than an in-person rejection, and therefore this might not be personal overestimation as much as a "what do I have to lose" attitude (in which case the gender gap could instead reflect a greater seriousness to get dates among women using the site than men).
2) What is the spread of attractiveness ratings for each person? Are the ratings reported averages or medians? In either case, since attractiveness is subjective, I wonder if the messages sent pair up to rated attractiveness better on an individual basis (and just a few users are skewing the averages).
3) It's generally assumed that women must fit a narrower range of qualities than men to be considered attractive. But these graphs seem to show the opposite - more women than men were rated average and highly. Does this effect persist in other contexts? Or do more attractive women use this site? Or do women just put more effort into presenting attractive photos?
And finally, a small critique. You seem to take as axiomatic that fat=unattractive. "Vanessa too has no illusions about her own attractiveness. She refers to herself as 'a fat girl.'" Actually, she has no illusions about her fatness. She didn't refer to herself as an unattractive girl, and I think that's supposed to be (part of) the point of the sketch. You know why she doesn't like it when Louie insists she's not fat out of 'kindness'? Because that implies being fat is not good or attractive. Imagine if a man commented that's he's tall and everyone rushed to exclaim, "No! You're not very tall at all."
mimimur — June 10, 2014
Another part of our skewed perception, though: They don't match. Not only does he look old enough to be her father, unlike him, she's made an obvious effort in her appearance, with perfect makeup and hair. If not for her weight, she would in fact fit the standard formula fro conventional beauty. He would not. It says a lot that this one digression from the norm on her part apparently puts her on the same level as a man with a whole host of other flaws.
Bill R — June 10, 2014
Not surprising overall, but this does seem to be centered primarily on younger "men" and "women" without a lot of experience in long-term relationships, before a first marriage.
Nyamina — June 11, 2014
This is a horrible article, maybe the worst I've seen on here, namely because I think it buys in so strongly to the mysogynistic way of thinking that people are ranked in these essentialised categories - 1 to 10. I honestly think that, in common with much modern sex-positive feminist actually, it buys in to the same thought process that MRAs, pick-up artists, Elliot Rogers and other assorted mysogynists display so powerfully, in fact feeds into it and encourages it. It's on the front line of this kind of mysogyny. It says "men, you want a 10 rated woman, obviously. You do, or you're weird. But you can't get one because you're not a wealthy alpha-male!" And men are encouraged to either increase their "status" via pick-up-artistry, or just give up and become bitter MRAs or incels. It's the exact same logic.
Of course, it's not true, it's a social construct, and even with a society (including this article!) putting this kind of of pressure on us, people find all kinds of people attractive. Rather than encouraging such a problematic way of measuring "attractiveness", why don't we focus on a heathier perception of beauty, where everyone can play a part? And then Louie wouldn't feel like his "status" was under threat by dating a "lower status" woman?
Anon — June 11, 2014
This article is interesting, but I'd like it more if it was less hetero- and cisnormative. Not all women date men, not all men date women, and not all people identify as either women or men.
Also, I really don't like the term "opposite" sex. Why do (the many different) sexes and genders have to be opposing?
Agrajag — June 12, 2014
Not really. I find this post tendentious. It is true that men are most likely to initiate contact with attractive women. But it's also true that men are a lot more likely to initiate contact, and to respond to contact-attempt at all.
That is, despite these graphs, a woman who scores a 1 (on this 0-5 scale) actually gets MORE messages than a man who score a 1 do.
And like you note: men are remarkably fair in their attractiveness-ratings, the graph looks like a classical bell-curve, centered in the middle of the interval, it looks normalized even though it's not.
In contrast, women are REMARKABLY unfair to men. By this graph, women rate about 85% of the men as being less than average attractive.
Men rate 20% of the women a 0 or a 1, and 20% of the women a 4 or 5.
Women, in contrast, rate 55% of the men a 0 or a 1, but only 2% a 4 (and apparently -none- of the men rate a 5)
These harsh judgements of men, by women, are supported by other data in the post too: Women are less likely to contact men. Women are less likely to RESPOND when men are contacting them.
Overall, this study shows that women have unrealistically high expectations of men, and that women are much more picky about men than the converse.
Which is pretty much the opposite conclusion from the one in the title here.
Enn — June 12, 2014
I don't think we can move instantly from the fact that women rated men much lower to the conclusion that women are much harsher judges than men. We'd need to actually compare the profiles.
For example, it's possible that the women's profiles really ARE much more attractive on average by nearly anyone's measure, because it's entirely possible that women tend to put more effort into their profile pictures, and/or that women are less willing than men to put up pictures of themselves if they think they're likely to be found unattractive.
I'm not sure those things ARE true, but you'd need to rule them out.
Andy — June 13, 2014
This is not correct.
"Women rated as 2s received only about 10% of the messages sent by men.
But men at that same level received 25% of the messages women sent."
From the rated attractiveness distributions (that you provide), this makes sense. There are more men with a rating of 2 or lower than there are women with the same rating. So this doesn't necessarily have to do with pickiness or realism of the individuals. It's matching the distributions.
LOLNope — June 15, 2014
The post is totally off base. First, there's misreading the OKCupid data - the women are rating a ridiculous percentage of the men as unattractive, unlike the men whose attractiveness ratings follow a bell curve as you'd expect, and which are far more generous to the women as far as how many of them are rated as attractive.
Second, why do you focus solely on physical attractiveness? That's the only thing men care about in determining whether a woman is attractive, but it's not the only thing women care about. They have a giant laundry list of other things, and the women in the video is far, far less attractive than Louis C.K. by the standards that women actually use. He's rich, he's famous, and he's funny. He's more like an 8 or a 9 based on what women care about (wealth/status/looks), and she's a 3 or a 4 based on what men care about (looks). Of course she wouldn't end up with him - she's shooting way the hell out of her league. Real life Louis C.K. can get a far more attractive woman, real life fat girl cannot get a more attractive man than him in the long term.
And there's the other rub, and why women are the ones who are delusional on this issue: a woman can get a more attractive man for a short term fling than she can for a long term relationship. Men lower their standards for a night in the sack, but raise them for long term commitment like marriage. Louis C.K. might sleep with this girl if he got drunk enough, but he'd never marry her. So she thinks she's on his level, because he'd have sex with her, but really that's the easy part. She's not on his level when it comes to commitment, because he'd never marry a 3 or a 4, he wants someone closer to him. Yet because she can sleep with an 8 or a 9, she thinks she's an 8 or a 9.
Donkey — June 15, 2014
Saw this on Reddit. Someone posted, quite accurately, that the data actually doesn't support the author's argument.
"This writer is an idiot. Men rated at "4" were 2% of the population and
received 4% of the messages. Women rated at "4" were 15% of the
population and received 26% of the messages.
The writer cites this as a problem that men are sending a
disproportionate number of messages to the upper level women. Sorry,
bro. 4/2 = 2 and 26/15 = 1.73."
Basically the data actually says the reverse of what's being argued here.
Dating for the socially awkward, tip #8: My life as a four, seven and now a five. | The "Diane is weird" files — June 16, 2014
[…] So trust me when I tell you that there is a very very big difference in how people treat you based on how you look. And it’s much bigger for women than it is for men. Statistics bear me out on this subject. […]
The best of the rest of the internet — July 23, 2014
[…] totally match.” On Louis C.K. and assortive mating. (Sociological […]
heapycloud — August 15, 2014
I'm not sure that looking at the proportions of messages received by people with various absolute attractiveness ratings is the right way to look at this data, because the distributions of attractiveness ratings given to female-identified users and male-identified users are so different. If you look at everything in terms of cumulative proportions, plotting the proportion of messages received below each attractiveness level against the proportion of users below each attractiveness level, the curves for female-identified users and male-identified users are nearly identical. In other words, female-identified and male-identified users seem to be treated basically the same in terms of how their relative attractiveness rating affects their relative likelihood of being messaged. In light of this, I'm curious about why the absolute attractiveness ratings given to female-identified and male-identified users are distributed so differently! I'd also love to know why the distribution of ratings given to female-identified users is so freakishly symmetric...
Private_Eyescream — September 7, 2014
Maybe this simply means that there are more ugly shallow women than there are by any measure more ugly shallow men.
The real statistic is simply.
Women want the world handed to them on a silver platter for the mere skill of being born with tits and vag-flaps. Then after that, the women want that silver platter sprinkled with gold & diamonds. This is for the women that are too mentally shallow to hold up a real conversation for 5 minutes without going into emotional hysteria. This is about the women that have zero cooking skills, no home making skills, and no skills in raising children and for the ZERO INVESTMENT VALUE to men that they offer, they still want "Queen Status" for being a worthless shallow dumb lump of human flesh.
Private_Eyescream — September 7, 2014
Want to know the bitter truth that the Mens Rights Movement has concluded.
WOMEN ARE A RAPIDLY DEPRECIATING ASSET.
If you marry a woman at 20, her looks will fade as fast as her compassion for men's suffering. Most women these days are shallow vain morons who are unemployable in terms of their educational gains and have zero employable job skills.
Meanwhile, MOST MEN ARE CONSTANTLY INCREASING THEIR NET WORTH AND SKILL SET.
A moderately attractive man will become steadily wealthier as they grow older unless they are a moron man-child (or if they are Hispanic or Black).
So any sane man will look at this in terms of a time graph and say, "Yeah I can sleep with the dumb slut, but she isn't worth marrying or even having as a real girlfriend or even a regular friend". Who is to blame for this problem? The lazy shallow women who have zero to offer above the neckline in their skulls.
Women want it all and they literally have nothing of value to offer to men aside from their stink holes (which are being replaced by plastic novelty sex toys). Any pure sexual value that women offer these days will go bad as fast as a ripening banana on a hot day. That is the bitter truth of the psychotic demented decades of poison fruit fallen from the twisted trees of Feminine Supremacist Dogma.
Private_Eyescream — September 7, 2014
‘In Economic Terms, You Are a Depreciating Asset’October 4, 2007
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2007/10/in_economic_terms_you_are_a_de.html
It's an age-old question: Why, in this city jam-packed with rich,
smart, pretty people, is it so hard for hot ladies to find mates? This
week, the definitive answer appeared on Craigslist, where the answers to
all urban koans may be found. "I'm a beautiful (spectacularly
beautiful) 25 year old girl," wrote a poster who called herself an
"enterprising young woman."
QUOTE:
"I'm looking to get married to a guy who makes at
least half a million a year. I know how that sounds, but keep in mind
that a million a year is middle class in New York City, so I don't think
I'm overreaching at all… I am looking for MARRIAGE ONLY… I wouldn't be
searching for these kind of guys if I wasn't able to match them – in
looks, culture, sophistication, and keeping a nice home and hearth. What
am I doing wrong?"
-----
A businessman offers his sage advice:
I read your posting with great interest and have thought meaningfully
about your dilemma. I offer the following analysis of your predicament.
Firstly, I'm not wasting your time, I qualify as a guy who fits your
bill; that is I make more than $500K per year. That said here's how I
see it.
Your offer, from the prospective of a guy like me, is plain and
simple a cr@ppy business deal. Here's why. Cutting through all the B.S.,
what you suggest is a simple trade: you bring your looks to the party
and I bring my money. Fine, simple. But here's the rub, your looks will
fade and my money will likely continue into perpetuity … in fact, it is
very likely that my income increases but it is an absolute certainty
that you won't be getting any more beautiful!
So, in economic terms you are a depreciating asset and I am an
earning asset. Not only are you a depreciating asset, your depreciation
accelerates! Let me explain, you're 25 now and will likely stay pretty
hot for the next 5 years, but less so each year. Then the fade begins in
earnest. By 35 stick a fork in you!
So in Wall Street terms, we would call you a trading position, not a
buy and hold … hence the rub … marriage. It doesn't make good business
sense to "buy you" (which is what you're asking) so I'd rather lease. In
case you think I'm being cruel, I would say the following. If my money
were to go away, so would you, so when your beauty fades I need an out.
It's as simple as that. So a deal that makes sense is dating, not
marriage.
Separately, I was taught early in my career about efficient markets.
So, I wonder why a girl as "articulate, classy and spectacularly
beautiful" as you has been unable to find your sugar daddy. I find it
hard to believe that if you are as gorgeous as you say you are that the
$500K hasn't found you, if not only for a tryout.
By the way, you could always find a way to make your own money and then we wouldn't need to have this difficult conversation.
With all that said, I must say you're going about it the right way. Classic "pump and dump."
I hope this is helpful, and if you want to enter into some sort of lease, let me know.
Private_Eyescream — September 7, 2014
http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=3472#comic
Father: "You shouldn't marry for beauty. You should marry for brains."
Son: "Why?"
Father: "Beauty fades quickly."
Father: "Say you get married at 25. You get maybe 25 years of beauty."
Father: "If you go for brains, you get, like, 45 years before that fades."
Son: "Are there any features that don't fade?"
Father: "Oh sure. If I were your age, I'd be into a chick with U.S. Treasury Bonds."
Private_Eyescream — September 7, 2014
http://dontmarry.wordpress.com/
In University, in professional sports, in politics, in the workplace;
women have the same educational and professional career opportunities as
men. Contrary to commonly believed feminist propaganda, women do indeed
get paid the same salary as men, given that they are willing to work
the same types of jobs as men, and work as many hours as the men do.
Despite this reality, many women come into marriage with very few
assets, and often are saddled with substantial quantities of debt. In
general, men are the ones who save and invest.
When marriage enters the picture, double standards and financial
imbalances leave responsible men to pick up the slack and fix the mess
she may have made of her finances. Men are forced to spend their
hard-earned savings, or take out an usurious loan, on a diamond ring.
The purchase of the diamond ring is a predictor of things to come.
Immediately after buying it, the man may be rewarded with bridal demands
to finance all or part of a lavish wedding, depending upon the size of
his bank account and the ambitions of his fiancée. The average costs of
today’s Western Weddings frequently exceed that of a house down payment
or, in certain parts of the world, the entire cost of the house itself.
If a man enters a marriage having saved up a down payment for his dream
home, it can suddenly be snatched right out from underneath him. Many
men may object to spending such a large sum of money on what is
basically a very expensive one-day, four-hour party.
Imagine if a man demanded equal treatment and asked that she buy him a
new bass boat, and a two-week bear hunt in Siberia as a condition of
marriage. This would be viewed as absurd, yet women do it every day.
Modern Western Marriage is supposedly an equal partnership, isn’t it?
Marriage can mean career slavery
Anyone who says, “Slavery is dead” clearly has not contemplated the
predicament of the average Western Husband, where a good paycheck can mean career slavery. Merriam-Webster’s English Dictionary defines
slavery as “…(T)he state of a person who is a chattel (an item of
tangible movable or immovable property) of another person.” If the
husband earns enough to support both of them, he would be hard pressed
to make an argument to preserve equality and have her continue working
as he does. If the wife decides to stop working, the man who has been
left holding the financial bag finds his options very limited.
If she stops working, she may never work again.
There are many debates about the merits of a stay-at-home mother vs. a
working mother. My goal here is to simply educate the prospective
husband on frequently unseen risks he is taking on when he agrees to
accept 100% of the financial burden to allow his wife to stay at home.
An informed decision is less likely to be one that may be regretted
later in the marriage.
If a married man cheats, he’s the scum of the earth. He is a selfish
jerk that has jeopardised the family unit, done his ‘thinking with his
little head’, and disrespected his wife and children. However, when the
woman cheats, she’s portrayed as the victim of an insensitive and
inattentive husband. “Poor thing, he ignores her. It is for her
empowerment, to boost her ego.
43% of Western Marriages end in divorce, and 70% to 93% of these divorces are initiated by women.
All men should consult a legal professional before marrying, and
understand the implications of divorce, because the chances are 1-in-3
that they will participate in one whether they like it, want it,
inititate it or not.
Upon divorce, all assets accumulated during and prior to a marriage
are subject to division. It has become, simply put. a licence to steal.
Even if the woman has not worked in years, and has spent the intervening
decade(s) shopping and lunching from 8am-3pm, she is entitled to half,
or more, of everything the man worked for during the course of the
marriage. Is this fair? How many people would ever agree to a job
contract that stipulated that in the event of separation that one party
would have to return 50% of the gross amount of everything in the pay
packet? No one in his or her right mind would knowingly sign such an
agreement. Yet Western Men unknowingly agree to the exact same insanity each time they sign their marriage contract!
“Assets accumulated prior to a marriage are exempt from a divorce”.
In theory this is true, in practice it is not. If funds from an account
are commingled or combined, it can become marital property. How do funds become commingled, or mixed? If even the smallest sum from a prior
account is spent towards the marriage, all of that account will now be
considered marital property.
Note: “Equal Division” is also somewhat of a misnomer.
Often, she can get upwards of 70% – 90% of the assets, while the man
gets the majority of the debts! She gets all of the benefits, he gets
all of the responsibilities. This, of course, is just and right and is
his reward for working so hard all of those years. He can afford it; she
can’t because she was not working.
-Having a lifelong, faithful, committed relationship has nothing to do with being “married”.
-Owning a beautiful dream home together has nothing to do with being “married”.
-Rearing healthy, happy, and successful children has nothing to do with being “married”.
-Building a family and life together has nothing to do with being “married”.
-Growing old together has nothing to do with being “married”.
Junko Beta — June 16, 2021
Another comment from Private_Eyescream..
>"I'm looking to get married to a guy who makes at least half a million a year. I know how that sounds, but keep in mind that a million a year is middle class in New York City, so I don't think I'm overreaching at all… I am looking for MARRIAGE ONLY… I wouldn't be searching for these kind of guys if I wasn't able to match them – in looks, culture, sophistication, and keeping a nice home and hearth. What am I doing wrong?"
So this is pretty shallow on the woman’s part.
>I read your posting with great interest and have thought meaningfully about your dilemma. I offer the following analysis of your predicament. Firstly, I'm not wasting your time, I qualify as a guy who fits your bill; that is I make more than $500K per year. That said here's how I see it. Your offer, from the prospective of a guy like me, is plain and simple a cr@ppy business deal. Here's why. Cutting through all the B.S., what you suggest is a simple trade: you bring your looks to the party and I bring my money. Fine, simple. But here's the rub, your looks will fade and my money will likely continue into perpetuity … in fact, it is very likely that my income increases but it is an absolute certainty that you won't be getting any more beautiful! So, in economic terms you are a depreciating asset and I am an earning asset. Not only are you a depreciating asset, your depreciation accelerates! Let me explain, you're 25 now and will likely stay pretty hot for the next 5 years, but less so each year. Then the fade begins in earnest. By 35 stick a fork in you!
And this is pretty shallow on the man’s part. Both the man and the woman are pieces of shits in this conversation, but you’re acting as if this so-called “businessman” is the wise one in this ridiculously fake scenario.
>So in Wall Street terms, we would call you a trading position, not a buy and hold … hence the rub … marriage. It doesn't make good business sense to "buy you" (which is what you're asking) so I'd rather lease. In case you think I'm being cruel, I would say the following. If my money were to go away, so would you, so when your beauty fades I need an out. It's as simple as that. So a deal that makes sense is dating, not marriage.
For you, but not for people who are actually healthy enough to get and stay married in the first place.
>Separately, I was taught early in my career about efficient markets. So, I wonder why a girl as "articulate, classy and spectacularly beautiful" as you has been unable to find your sugar daddy. I find it hard to believe that if you are as gorgeous as you say you are that the $500K hasn't found you, if not only for a tryout. By the way, you could always find a way to make your own money and then we wouldn't need to have this difficult conversation. With all that said, I must say you're going about it the right way. Classic "pump and dump." I hope this is helpful, and if you want to enter into some sort of lease, let me know.
Lol what a laugh riot. If I could take extra time out of my day to post this conversation on r/thathappened, I would.
Junko Beta — June 16, 2021
Another response comment for Mister Private_Eyescream
>Want to know the bitter truth that the Mens Rights Movement has concluded
I’m gonna stop you right there. The Men’s Rights Movement doesn’t encourage slandering and generalizing women as a whole in a bluntly negative light. The Men’s Rights Movement is about bringing attention to the society injustices towards men that don’t seem as obvious as the struggles women often go through. This whole incel rant you’re going on? That’s just you, kiddo.
>WOMEN ARE A RAPIDLY DEPRECIATING ASSET. If you marry a woman at 20, her looks will fade as fast as her compassion for men's suffering. Most women these days are shallow vain morons who are unemployable in terms of their educational gains and have zero employable job skills.
LMAO I like how you bash women for “going ugly as soon as possible” as if men put in even a fraction of the amount of effort women use for their appearances. As if men can’t get butt-ugly as well? And talk about making looks out to be the only meaningful aspect about a woman. Let’s just go ahead and pretend that he has no brain for that matter. Did your mom abuse you as a child? Who hurt you? As for the moron part, yeah let’s just totally ignore the fact that girls typically get higher grades than boys in school settings: https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/girls-get-better-grades-boys-even-stem-subjects-study-finds-n912891. No job skills? Guess you haven’t researched who makes up the majority of teachers, nurses, childcare workers, accountants, AND medicine manufacturing..
>Meanwhile, MOST MEN ARE CONSTANTLY INCREASING THEIR NET WORTH AND SKILL SET. A moderately attractive man will become steadily wealthier as they grow older unless they are a moron man-child (or if they are Hispanic or Black). So any sane man will look at this in terms of a time graph and say, "Yeah I can sleep with the dumb slut, but she isn't worth marrying or even having as a real girlfriend or even a regular friend". Who is to blame for this problem? The lazy shallow women who have zero to offer above the neckline in their skulls.
Even though there’s almost no difference in the amount of women and men who are in poverty? And I don’t think anyone’s told you this so I guess I’ll break it to you. Most people in the world aren’t rich, let alone wealthy. Considering there are more men than women in the world, you can say that men have failed this supposed goal of the majority of them getting “wealthier” with time.. You also have to think about the different countries that deliberately discourage women from being able to do pretty much anything with their lives (asian and middle eastern countries).
>Women want it all and they literally have nothing of value to offer to men aside from their stink holes (which are being replaced by plastic novelty sex toys).
I can just as easily say that men have nothing to offer aside from their rotten, maggot infested worm parasitic dicks and two testicles, which are easily replaced by effective dildos. Vaginas actually clean themselves with monthly menstrual cycles so “stink holes” is actually an inaccurate term. The female genitalia has the ability to clean itself on the inside so that the woman only has to worry about cleaning it on the outside! Meanwhile men are actually the ones who are driving the rates of STDs up despite women being biologically more vulnerable: https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/stds/43714
>Any pure sexual value that women offer these days will go bad as fast as a ripening banana on a hot day.
Yeah, and I can easily say that you’d have better chances of teaching a cat to defuse a bomb than you’d have of teaching a man how to properly finger a girl, find the clitoris, or even make their wives cum.
>That is the bitter truth of the psychotic demented decades of poison fruit fallen from the twisted trees of Feminine Supremacist Dogma.
Again, this is basically just an incel rampage from the bowels of your pathetic brain.
Junko Beta — June 16, 2021
Final message for you, Private_Eyescream! You ready?
>Maybe this simply means that there are more ugly shallow women than there are by any measure more ugly shallow men.
Is that what the flesh-eating amoeba in your brain is telling you?
>The real statistic is simply.
Oh yes. The “real” statistic. Because everything you say is definitely more credible than the research this article did.
>Women want the world handed to them on a silver platter for the mere skill of being born with tits and vag-flaps.
I like how you say that when men have been the primary initiators of war, genocide, rape, and murder because of their dumbass egos and inflated sense of importance towards their pus-filled dickholes.
>Then after that, the women want that silver platter sprinkled with gold & diamonds. This is for the women that are too mentally shallow to hold up a real conversation for 5 minutes without going into emotional hysteria.
Are you talking about women or just yourself? I’d have a much easier time believing that you’re self projecting rather than you somehow knowing how most, let alone every woman on Earth thinks.
>This is about the women that have zero cooking skills, no home making skills, and no skills in raising children and for the ZERO INVESTMENT VALUE to men that they offer, they still want "Queen Status" for being a worthless shallow dumb lump of human flesh.
Because you’re any better right? Because you’re definitely any better than the women you’re trashing despite you ranting on the internet like some autistic monkey about how angry his smelly, rotten, corpse-smelling, crusting, bleeding, pimple covered, pus-oozing, ebola virus-spreading, pathetic excuse for a penis is at women for not being interested in him?
Please hang yourself. The world is better off without you. Beta Junko out.
Lucas Rice — March 31, 2022
The priority in the psychological need of a woman is to understand, express and change feelings. A man, on the other hand, always thinks solution-oriented and cannot perceive the importance that a woman attaches to feelings. As a result, a person who behaves in accordance with the psychological nature of a person, taking into account the genetic structure, will more easily achieve happiness,”he said slope unblocked.